Find court opinions that match your case.
Search 312,996+ US court opinions imported from the Caselaw Access Project — Supreme Court, federal circuits, and state high courts. Filter by practice area, state, outcome, and connect with the attorneys who tried them.
Latest Opinions · freshly imported court decisions
The most recent court rulings now available in the library. Click through for the full opinion, the attorneys involved, and related cases.
Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc.
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.
Commonwealth v. Gomes
Marchese v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth.
Veolia Energy Bos., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Bos.
Bos. Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court
Commonwealth v. Reyes
United States v. Block
1861 Cases
73 matching opinions . Filter by practice area below, or use the search above for free-text matching against title and syllabus.
Browse by State 28
Browse by Year 40
Conway v. Taylor's Executor
Conway et al. vs. Taylor’s Executor. 1. A ferry franchise on the Ohio is grantable, under the laws of Kentucky, to a citizen of that State who is a riparian owner on the Kentucky side; and it is not necessary to the validity of the grant th
Glasgow v. Hortiz
Glasgow et al. vs. Hortiz et al. 1. " The act of Congress, passed June 13,1812, confirming to the inhabitants of St. Louis and other villages. the lots, out-lots, common-fields, &c., occupied and cultivated by, them before 1803, is a presen
Sherman v. Smith
Sherman vs. Smith. The State of New York established a general banking law, containing a provision that members of an association, organized under it, should not be individually liable for its debts unless by their own agreement, but reserv
Pindell v. Mullikin
Pindell vs. Mullikin et al. A bill claiming title to, and praying for possession of, lands will be dis« missed, if the complainant and those through whom he claims'have taken no steps to assert their right for twenty years; the land being,
Silliman v. Hudson River Bridge Co.
Silliman vs. Hudson River Bridge Company.—Coleman vs. Same. 1. In a case where the judges of the *Circuit Court have divided in opinion upon several questions, one of them being whether the . court has jurisdiction, the question of jurisdic
The Propeller Commerce
The Propeller Commerce—Transportation Company, Claimant; Fitzhugh et al., Libellants. 1 To bring,a case of collision within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts,' it is not necessary to show that either of the vessels was engage
Inbusch v. Farwell
Inbusch vs. Farwell. 1. Partnership goods were attached on mesne process against three partners, for a partnership debt; property released on bond conditioned to pay the. judgment which may be recovered against the defendants; suit disconti
United States v. Vallejo
United States vs. Vallejo. 1. The decree of the Spanish Cortes relative to crown lands passed in ' 1813, being inapplicable to the state óf things which existed in Mexico after the revolution of 1820, could pot have continued in force there
Law v. Cross
Law vs. Cross. 1. An agent may sue his principal in his own name on the contract by which he was employed, though he be a member of a mercantile house through which the correspondence necessary in the transao tion of the business was carrie
The Steamer St. Lawrence
The Steamer St. Lawrence—Meyer et al., Claimants; Tupper et al., Libellants. 1. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts in admiralty and maritime caces is given in general terms by the Constitution, a-nd the extent of it is to be ascertained
Hoyt v. Shelden
Hoyt vs. Shelden, Ex’r of Thompson, and the Long Island Railroad Company. 1. This court cannot review the proceedings of a State court, on the ground that the judgment or decree violates the Federal Constitution, unjess it appears from the
Foster v. Goddard
Foster vs. Goddard.—Goddard vs. Foster. 1. An exception to a master’s report is not in the nature of a special demurrer, and is not required to be so full and specific. 2. It is only necessary that the exception should distinctly point out
Ex parte Gordon
Ex Parte Gordon. 1. A writ of prohibition cannot issue from this court in cases where there is no appellate power given by law, nor any special authority to issue the writ. 2. Neither a writ of error, writ of prohibition, nor certiorari, wi
White's Administrator v. United States
White’s Administrator vs. The United States. This court will not award a mandamus to the judge of the Distrit.1 Court, commanding him to permit the intervention of one claimant in a proceeding instituted by another for the confirmation of a
The Water Witch
The Water Witch—Clifton, Claimant; Sheldon, Libellant. 1. Two consignees of a cargo libelled the ship by which it was carried for damage suffered on the voyage, and the owner of the ship libel-led the whole cargo for freight and primage. Th
Flanigan v. Turner
Flanigan et al. vs. Turner. A respondent sued in admiralty for repairs to a vessel cannot deny that he is sole owner if the vessel, has been sold by the order of another court, and he has claimed and received the proceeds as sole owner. Thi
United States v. Knight's Administrator
United States vs. Knight’s Administrator. 1. After a cause has been argued and decided, the court will not hear a motion to change the decree based on affidavits taken to show facts which do not appear in the record. 2. ' This eourt will no
United States v. Jackalow
United States vs. Jackalow. 1. To give a Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction of an offence not committed within its district, it must appear, not only that the accused party was first apprehended in that district, but also that
Leonard v. Davis
Leonard et al. vs. Davis et al. 1. If it be stipulated in a contract that a duty arising out of it shall be performed by a particular officer, the performance of such duty by deputies, under his direction, will not satisfy the terms of the
Franklin Branch Bank v. Ohio
Franklin Branch Bank vs. The State of Ohio. The sixtieth section of the act of the O.hio Legislature incorporating the State Bank contains a contract for a fixed rule of taxation upon that bank and its branches,' and a subsequent act, which
Verden v. Coleman
Verden vs. Coleman. 1. A patent was granted to a pre-emptor in 1841 for a tract of land v> hich had been previously assigned, by the direction of the President, to a Pottawatomie Indian, under the terms of the treaty with that tribe. The pa
McCool v. Smith
McCool vs. Smith. 1. A statute of Virginia, passed after the 1st-of March, 1784, when Virginia ceded to the United States her territory north and west of the Ohio, has not, and never had, any force within the limits óf Illinois. 2. In ascer
Washington & Turner v. Ogden
Washington and Turner vs. Ogden. 1. Where a written agreement for the sale of lands, executed and sealed by vendor and vendee, binds one party to make a deed for the property, and the other to pay a certain sum, part in cash, within sixty d
Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly
Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelly. 1. It is the general rule, that the construction given by State courts to State laws and constitutions are binding and conclusive upon the Federal courts; but the rule does not extend to cases in which this
Need an attorney for a case like these?
Browse 7,507+ verified US attorneys whose names appear in real court opinions. Filter by practice area and state to find someone with relevant experience.